Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)

[The Folk Prophet]

I am a Mormon Because I am a Feminist

 

Some really insightful thinking here. I don't know if I agree with it entirely (though mostly). There's a few problems with it I think. But we can discuss as the thread gets rolling. I want to see what others think.

[pam]

Yeh that was passed all around social media last year.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeh that was passed all around social media last year.   :)

 

Well I just saw it on social media today! :)

 

Was it discussed here though? If so, I want to add to the discussion likely. If not...let's discuss!!

[pam]

Well I just saw it on social media today! :)

 

Was it discussed here though? If so, I want to add to the discussion likely. If not...let's discuss!!

 

You really should spend more time on social media.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

It's the first time I have seen it too.      I'm glad you mentioned it TFP, because I quite enjoyed reading it.

 

So now I am curious, what problems do you think there are?  It seemed very reasonable to me, but I'm willing to consider your thoughts.

[The Folk Prophet]

You really should spend more time on social media.  

 

Hehe. But social media is the devil's playground.

[Guest]

Hmmm... she said what I've been saying all along...

[Connie]

It was an interesting article.  I am a bit uncomfortable with her harping on "Eve didn't sin" and stating unequivocally that this is "LDS doctrine."  While i suppose that one could argue sin versus transgression, the consequences of both are the same--separation from God.  However, she does not even do that in this article.  Instead she claims what a good this was and that she was rewarded for it.  Having to leave the presence of God is a reward?  I think she is skipping over a big part of the picture here.  She's right in that LDS doctrine does not condemn Eve or Adam.  And yet, scriptures such as D&C 29:40-41 and 1 Timothy 2:14 are still part of the canon.

 

My favorite explanation of the Fall comes from Tad R. Callister's book The Infinite Atonement.  He states that Adam and Eve lived under four conditions in the Garden of Eden; two positive and two negative.  The positive are they were immortal and lived in the presence of God.  The negative were they were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil, and that they could not have children.  After the fall these four conditions became reversed.  The positives became negatives and the negatives became positives.

 

“If Adam and Eve had partaken with ‘full’ knowledge of obeying a higher law, as some would suggest, one wonders why the scriptures would have used words and phrases such as ‘beguiled,’ ‘deceived,’ ‘yielded,’ and even ‘spiritually dead,’ to describe their Edenic conduct and subsequent state of affairs.  One also wonders how they could have ‘full’ knowledge when they lived in a state of innocence, knowing neither good nor evil.  In that state of innocence, it would not have been possible for them to completely comprehend which choice was good and which was evil…. If they had proceeded with a full or even partial knowledge of the consequences, this would have been an appropriate moment to respond [with] explanation as to why the choice had been made…  We do not know all the conditions under which Adam and Eve made that fateful, yet wonderful choice of mortality… Adam and Eve are to be commended, not condemned.  Someday we will know the full statue of their nobility.  If they consciously partook of the fruit, sufficiently understanding the consequences, we honor them.  If they partook in innocence or were partially deceived, and thereafter learned the plan of salvation because of their obedience and faithfulness, which plan they thereafter taught with love and diligence to their posterity, then, again, we honor them.”

Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement

 

I would have to conclude that she has decided to skip over the negatives and instead focus solely on the positives.  And if that is the case, and while i personally disagree that is the way to explain the fall, i guess i can see where she is coming from and would probably grudingly agree despite what i consider to be some unfortunate choice of wording.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's the first time I have seen it too.      I'm glad you mentioned it TFP, because I quite enjoyed reading it.

 

So now I am curious, what problems do you think there are?  It seemed very reasonable to me, but I'm willing to consider your thoughts.

 

Yeah. Had some very interesting ideas, for sure. And my sense is that there's some real insight there. However, there are a couple of things that people like to just ignore and/or discard when speaking about "feminist" issues in the church in today's "equality" driven, politically correct world.

 

First, she talks about a mistranslated in the Bible of the world "over", wherein "rule over" should be "rule with". That's fine. But it kind of just disregards other scriptures. First Moses 4:22, which has the exact same wording. If "rule over" was wrong, why wasn't it fixed in Moses? And what about Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1, and the like?

 

Second, she sort of refers to a temple covenant in there. Without going into any detail here, I think it's problematic to ignore the older wording in the covenant that was softened in 1990. To just ignore that and throw it out as archaic implies that the actual covenant made prior to 1990 was false doctrine and every woman going through the temple prior to that was literally covenanting with the Lord to something that the Lord didn't actually want them to covenant. Seems problematic.

 

Finally, modern day LDS feminists in their approach to explaining the husband/wife dynamic tend to conveniently forget about polygamy. I know some use equality thinking to contend that polygamy therefore cannot logically be the eternal order of things. But there are way to many historical records of those in the early days of polygamy having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it is what convinced them to join into polygamy for that to fly in my thinking.

 

I'm not saying the article is wrong or that men and women should not be equally yoked in the family dynamic...but there's something that is not being understood somewhere in there that needs to be addressed. I can't say I have explanations. But I can, certainly, notice that they're missing.

[The Folk Prophet]

It was an interesting article.  I am a bit uncomfortable with her harping on "Eve didn't sin" and stating unequivocally that this is "LDS doctrine."  While i suppose that one could argue sin versus transgression, the consequences of both are the same--separation from God.  However, she does not even do that in this article.  Instead she claims what a good this was and that she was rewarded for it.  Having to leave the presence of God is a reward?  I think she is skipping over a big part of the picture here.  She's right in that LDS doctrine does not condemn Eve or Adam.  And yet, scriptures such as D&C 29:40-41 and 1 Timothy 2:14 are still part of the canon.

 

My favorite explanation of the Fall comes from Tad R. Callister's book The Infinite Atonement.  He states that Adam and Eve lived under four conditions in the Garden of Eden; two positive and two negative.  The positive are they were immortal and lived in the presence of God.  The negative were they were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil, and that they could not have children.  After the fall these four conditions became reversed.  The positives became negatives and the negatives became positives.

 

 

I would have to conclude that she has decided to skip over the negatives and instead focus solely on the positives.  And if that is the case, and while i personally disagree that is the way to explain the fall, i guess i can see where she is coming from and would probably grudingly agree despite what i consider to be some unfortunate choice of wording.

 

Another good thought that I didn't address. I actually did have this thought though. She talks about the childbirth thing being only positive, and clearly bearing children IS positive, but the "greatly multiply thy sorrow" thing and "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" certainly implies something more than -- "You did good Eve. Let me reward you."

 

As Connie suggests, the action in the Garden by Eve (and then by Adam) was transgression. And as much as LDS thinking does not condemn Adam and Eve, the reason is because they were willing to repent, take on covenants, and do the will of the Lord thereafter. Had Adam and Eve chosen NOT to repent of their transgression and submit to God's will, surely they would have been condemned.

[omegaseamaster75]

"After decades of studying LDS doctrine concerning women (and carefully distinguishing it from LDS cultural understandings and practices, which in quite a few cases contradict that doctrine)"

 

I wonder what cultural understanding and practices she is referring to?

 

She lays heavily into equality and while I agree that fundamentally the gospel teaches this principle sometimes it is not always obvious. I think that her view on the fall is acceptable, sure she sugar coats it but the point of the article is not an indepth discussion of the fall.

[Traveler]

First I must admit I did not read the entire article - but I plan to.  Second I will put forth some of my ideas about the Adam - Eve saga.

 

Ideas: 

I see nothing in any choice or decision made by Adam and Eve that were not part of the decisions and choices we all made in the pre-existence.   Thus I am not sure if I believe that the garden epoch in scripture is not symbolic of something far more reaching in the saga of all mankind.  I do not believe that anyone is “stuck” with a lot in life because something done by individuals (Adam and Eve) to which they would have no input.

 

Next I think that because of the power of political correctness and some misguided feministic overreaching that almost everybody is ignoring the “elephant in the room”.  I know what some mean in saying men and women are equal.  But the simple and obvious truth is that men and women are not equal.  This is because men and women are different.  Most assume that if we realize that two things are not equal then one must be greater than the other and I simply do not believe this logic applies.  What I believe is that we assume men and women are equal because one is not greater than the other.  That is what I see as a great mistake in the logic of feminism.  Trying to make and prove men and women are equal a foolish exercise in stupidity that in the end will accomplish very little of benefit and cause more problems than what our misguided prejudice can realize. 

 

I tend to think that men and women are both completely different by themselves and that only together can they be completed.  And that since the whole of their completeness is much greater than the sum of all their parts – it is foolish and stupid to think one is greater than the other.  One without the other is by them self unsustainable and thus an inevitable failure in the long run.  A man that does not honor and respect the role his wife and what she is capable of bringing to their partnership ruins himself and the best of his potential and likewise a woman that despises or does not appreciate and respect the role of her husband ruins herself and the best of her potential.  The one point I agree with the feminists is that in general men have been less appreciative and respectful.  What I disagree with is with any diminishing a man or the role of men by feminists that think they can do whatever a man does – just as well because the two are “equal”.

 

The final point for now is that the greatest accomplishment of the partnership of men and women is children.  As women assume their role of carrying a child they are vulnerable on many levels and are best served by a responsible father that cares for and provides for the mother and the child’s needs during this time.  In this role women are dependent on men and men are responsible for the pregnant woman.  I also do not believe humanity is best served by large shifts in rolls or in the preparation of individual to their most important roll.  As with many things in life – if one is going to be a wide receiver I do not believe they should put forth a lot of effort in to being a running back.  The team needs both in order to have that winning combination. 

[The Folk Prophet]

"After decades of studying LDS doctrine concerning women (and carefully distinguishing it from LDS cultural understandings and practices, which in quite a few cases contradict that doctrine)"

 

I wonder what cultural understanding and practices she is referring to?

 

She lays heavily into equality and while I agree that fundamentally the gospel teaches this principle sometimes it is not always obvious. I think that her view on the fall is acceptable, sure she sugar coats it but the point of the article is not an indepth discussion of the fall.

 

I wonder the same. My take is that what she really means is, "After decades of studying LDS doctrine concerning women (and carefully aligning it to current cultural understandings and practices...)".

[The Folk Prophet]

First I must admit I did not read the entire article - but I plan to.  Second I will put forth some of my ideas about the Adam - Eve saga.

 

Ideas: 

I see nothing in any choice or decision made by Adam and Eve that were not part of the decisions and choices we all made in the pre-existence.   Thus I am not sure if I believe that the garden epoch in scripture is not symbolic of something far more reaching in the saga of all mankind.  I do not believe that anyone is “stuck” with a lot in life because something done by individuals (Adam and Eve) to which they would have no input.

 

Next I think that because of the power of political correctness and some misguided feministic overreaching that almost everybody is ignoring the “elephant in the room”.  I know what some mean in saying men and women are equal.  But the simple and obvious truth is that men and women are not equal.  This is because men and women are different.  Most assume that if we realize that two things are not equal then one must be greater than the other and I simply do not believe this logic applies.  What I believe is that we assume men and women are equal because one is not greater than the other.  That is what I see as a great mistake in the logic of feminism.  Trying to make and prove men and women are equal a foolish exercise in stupidity that in the end will accomplish very little of benefit and cause more problems than what our misguided prejudice can realize. 

 

I tend to think that men and women are both incompletely different by themselves and that only together can they be completed.  And that since the whole of their completeness is much greater than the sum of all their parts – it is foolish and stupid to think one is greater than the other.  One without the other is by them self unsustainable and thus an inevitable failure in the long run.  A man that does not honor and respect the role his wife and what she is capable of bringing to their partnership ruins himself and the best of his potential and likewise a woman that despises or does not appreciate and respect the role of her husband ruins herself and the best of her potential.  The one point I agree with the feminists is that in general men have been less appreciative and respectful.  What I disagree with is with any diminishing a man or the role of men by feminists that think they can do whatever a man does – just as well because the two are “equal”.

 

The final point for now is that the greatest accomplishment of the partnership of men and women is children.  As women assume their role of carrying a child they are vulnerable on many levels and are best served by a responsible father that cares for and provides for the mother and the child’s needs during this time.  In this role women are dependent on men and men are responsible for the pregnant woman.  I also do not believe humanity is best served by large shifts in rolls or in the preparation of individual to their most important roll.  As with many things in life – if one is going to be a wide receiver I do not believe they should put forth a lot of effort in to being a running back.  The team needs both in order to have that winning combination. 

 

I very much agree with you. It's like trying to equate gasoline and motor oil as equals. They are not. And if you put them against each other in head to head competitions, the gasoline would run circles around the oil in burning speed and the oil would run circles around the gasoline in lubrication. They are not equal. But...try running your gas engine without one of them.

[mordorbund]

Or as a Muslim scholar said, "we believe in equality, but not in artificial equality intended to 'correct' natural inequality." (paraphrased - it's in Mormons and Muslims).

[Traveler]

I very much agree with you. It's like trying to equate gasoline and motor oil as equals. They are not. And if you put them against each other in head to head competitions, the gasoline would run circles around the oil in burning speed and the oil would run circles around the gasoline in lubrication. They are not equal. But...try running your gas engine without one of them.

 

I kind of like your example - and note as well that there is also a difference in how each are prepared (refined) for their roll.  In this is the understanding that treating someone differently does not mean that they are unequal

[yjacket]

Traveler,

 

Thank you . . . due to unforeseen circumstances in my life I am having to take on additional responsibilities with my children.  One thing that is somewhat frustrating is when others (who I know are trying to be helpful), say something to the affect of don't worry you'll get it (it being all the responsibilities of my wife taking care of the kids).  

 

To that I say hogwash . . .yes I can learn to do somethings, and yes with God's help we'll make it through.  But I will never get "it".  I am a father, I have to be a super-dad for the time being, not both a dad and a mom and there is a big difference.

 

Men and women are different, they are wired chemically, biologically and emotionally different.  But different is good!  That is what makes a family, we are able to learn over time to take the best of the male, the best of the female and combine them into a wonderful unit.  This pervasive idea that in order to be equal women must be able to do every job that a man can do and vice verse is very destructive on society.  It basically tries to teach us that men are not different from women.  My gosh anybody who has kids can take one look at a boy, one look at a girl and its quite obvious there are innate inborn differences. Yes there are some girls and boys who are operate out of the normal behaviors, but in general little boys and little girls act much differently. 

 

Ultimately, this idea destroys families.  It puts an emphasis more on work and being recognized by the world rather than taking care of and providing for the most important things-children.  Look at Kate Kelly . . . . she's ~31, after 35 pregnancies become higher risk.  Far be it for me to be judgmental, but it's highly unlikely that she will end up have more than a couple of kids based on her current glidepath.  

 

And as my dad said and I fully 2nd . . . my greatest regret in life is that I didn't have twice as many kids.

 

I will disagree slightly that men have been less appreciative.  One of the ideals to aspire to before feminists really got going was chivalry.  The idea of opening doors for women, giving up your sit for a woman, letting them go first.  I personally don't believe it was because men thought women were lesser . . .I think it was to show appreciation, respect, etc.  It is very, very rare to see those types of things happen today because it has been beaten out of men that if a man opens a door specifically for a woman she'll think he's a pig. 

[classylady]

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.

 

My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.

 

My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women?  You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

[Connie]

Generally speaking i also don't usually like the use of the word "equal" in regard to these issues.  The first experience people have with that word is in mathematics.  And in mathematics "equal" does mean "same."  It can lend a great deal of confusion to the topic.

 

In this article, i felt like she qualified the term enough that it mostly reduced the confusion.  But like TFP, i do feel like there is something missing in this article.  In reading it over again, i'm thinking that was is missing is Christ.

 

It's not a very long article considering the depth of the topic.  It kind of feels like she's all over the place.  It would be nice if she had fleshed out her ideas more.

[The Folk Prophet]

The equal but with different roles approach only works if those being addressed view the differences as equal. Making an extreme point of this, if you take a slave and their master and tell them they are equal but with different roles is doesn't really work.

 

That is why the different roles model doesn't sit well with some feminists, I think. Some women see that as perfect reasonable because they view the different role they are meant to play as equal. Others see it more akin to a slave/master setup (though, perhaps less extreme -- though by the way some of them talk it seems they may view it that extremely in cases). You can tell the slave his/her role is just as important as the masters all day long and it's still going to seem unfair.

 

In my mind that means those who struggle have one of two options in resolving it (without losing their salvation). 1. Come to terms and be at peace with a "lesser" role. 2. Adjust their view and learn to see more value in their role.

[classylady]

The equal but with different roles approach only works if those being addressed view the differences as equal. Making an extreme point of this, if you take a slave and their master and tell them they are equal but with different roles is doesn't really work.

 

That is why the different roles model doesn't sit well with some feminists, I think. Some women see that as perfect reasonable because they view the different role they are meant to play as equal. Others see it more akin to a slave/master setup (though, perhaps less extreme -- though by the way some of them talk it seems they may view it that extremely in cases). You can tell the slave his/her role is just as important as the masters all day long and it's still going to seem unfair.

 

In my mind that means those who struggle have one of two options in resolving it (without losing their salvation). 1. Come to terms and be at peace with a "lesser" role. 2. Adjust their view and learn to see more value in their role.

 

In some cultures being female is considered a "lesser" role. What I find grateful within the church is that the role of woman is not deemed "lesser". I have never felt that my feminine role is "lesser" than a man's.

 

I have often pondered on why throughout the ages have women's roles been deemed "lesser" than a man's role. Women are absolutely necessary in the production of children and ensuring that they survive. Men are physically stronger and throughout the ages have needed that physical strength to physically provide for the family. That doesn't mean that a woman's role is "lesser" because she is physically weaker. Does testosterone play a role for the reasoning that men think they are "superior"? I read a study where test subjects were asked how well they think they did on a test. Men typically thought they did well, and women tended to think they didn't. Is that the man's testosterone/biological factor or is it a cultural phenomenon? With my limited biology/science understanding, I tend to think that testosterone plays a huge role in men thinking they are superior over women. Just putting that out there. What do you think?

[The Folk Prophet]

In some cultures being female is considered a "lesser" role. What I find grateful within the church is that the role of woman is not deemed "lesser". I have never felt that my feminine role is "lesser" than a man's.

 

I have often pondered on why throughout the ages have women's roles been deemed "lesser" than a man's role. Women are absolutely necessary in the production of children and ensuring that they survive. Men are physically stronger and throughout the ages have needed that physical strength to physically provide for the family. That doesn't mean that a woman's role is "lesser" because she is physically weaker. Does testosterone play a role for the reasoning that men think they are "superior"? I read a study where test subjects were asked how well they think they did on a test. Men typically thought they did well, and women tended to think they didn't. Is that the man's testosterone/biological factor or is it a cultural phenomenon? With my limited biology/science understanding, I tend to think that testosterone plays a huge role in men thinking they are superior over women. Just putting that out there. What do you think?

 

*shrug* Dunno for sure. I'm not that educated on the sociological ideas behind these things. If I recall from things I've read or learned, when society was dangerous, required physical prowess for survival and protection, it naturally falls to the dominant physical sex to lead and protect. Only when society advances enough that we aren't all homesteading, farming, hunting, and building for our own survival does equality in the sexes from a physical standpoint become less meaningful. I would dare say that other invalid views of superiority (being smarter, etc...) simply stemmed from the physical superiority in a world where physical superiority mattered so much more. Like I said, I don't know for sure though. 

[Traveler]

In some cultures being female is considered a "lesser" role. What I find grateful within the church is that the role of woman is not deemed "lesser". I have never felt that my feminine role is "lesser" than a man's.

 

I have often pondered on why throughout the ages have women's roles been deemed "lesser" than a man's role. Women are absolutely necessary in the production of children and ensuring that they survive. Men are physically stronger and throughout the ages have needed that physical strength to physically provide for the family. That doesn't mean that a woman's role is "lesser" because she is physically weaker. Does testosterone play a role for the reasoning that men think they are "superior"? I read a study where test subjects were asked how well they think they did on a test. Men typically thought they did well, and women tended to think they didn't. Is that the man's testosterone/biological factor or is it a cultural phenomenon? With my limited biology/science understanding, I tend to think that testosterone plays a huge role in men thinking they are superior over women. Just putting that out there. What do you think?

 

Ignorance is the reason why the divine roll of women is diminished in various cultures.  But I would also point out that it is in the same manner of ignorance that the divine roll of men is diminished in various cultures.   I believe it is impossible to understand the divine roll of one without understanding the divine roll of the other. 

 

It is my observation that the things of the world and the lust for individual achievement are the engines that distorts both the rolls of men and women.  Often I hear the arguments of feminists that women should be able to achieve all the same things that men do.  But this is distorting the divine roll of men as well as women – achieving things and glory of the world is not the divine roll of men.  But it appears that many think it so and are jealous of that.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Finally, modern day LDS feminists in their approach to explaining the husband/wife dynamic tend to conveniently forget about polygamy. I know some use equality thinking to contend that polygamy therefore cannot logically be the eternal order of things. But there are way to many historical records of those in the early days of polygamy having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it is what convinced them to join into polygamy for that to fly in my thinking.

 

I'm not saying the article is wrong or that men and women should not be equally yoked in the family dynamic...but there's something that is not being understood somewhere in there that needs to be addressed. I can't say I have explanations. But I can, certainly, notice that they're missing.

What do you mean by "having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it ..."?  What do you mean by "it"? 

 

That sounds like a silly question but what I am getting at is whether in those visions the "it" refers to having obeyed a commandment while on Earth (it happening to be polygamy in this case) or actually refers to receiving glory from continuing to live polygamy in the next life.  In the examples of what I have read concerning those kinds of visions that come from even leaders in the church, in my view (admittedly looking at these things through female eyes), the glory that pertains to living such a law is something that goes on through the eternities because now all those women who have had now the chance to live in a Celestial-type marriage in this life will have that opportunity in the next life and that will continue on forever.  Your right, who wouldn't want to be a part of that.  To me, it is the same thing as saying how great shall be your joy if you bring one soul unto me.  If a missionary baptizes one soul, then that soul shares the gospel with others etc, the happiness that is created by such a thing is one that brings eternal joy because it continues on in the next life, that soul continuing to bring about immortality and eternal life to others (if they remain faithful).  Likewise, anyone who is given a commandment, whether it be polygamy or something else that results in eternal convenents for that person will enjoy the blessings eternally for providing such an opportunity.  I think that coincides with what is meant by the posterity of Abraham, the linked opportunity to enjoy these eternal covenents will provide all those blessings promised to Abraham.  I am not sure what more you are reading into those accounts unless you specifically show them and discuss them.  For me, at least, there is no hang-up there.